[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 58 KB, 1008x720, 23445645656.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5293959 No.5293959 [Reply] [Original]

Isn't putting limits on science holding us back? I mean obviously there are certain things that can't be broken. Like a human flying by flapping his arms fast enough.

Like saying we can't achieve "A" because of "B". Where B is a specific law or limit that someone made up.

Why not just say fuck "B" lets find a way around it? Instead i read a lot about people not even trying to break "B" or find a way around it because it's "impossible". Isn't part of science trying to find new ways to achieve previously thought impossible things?

>> No.5293964

Protip: The "way around it" is to go there slower than light.

>> No.5293965

Who's putting limits on science?

>> No.5293971

>>5293969
Which ones?

>> No.5293969

>>5293965
scientists

>> No.5293970

>>5293965
Yeah OP, when has this ever happened?

>> No.5293973

>>5293970
well this is one example
>>5293964
they say we can never achieve light speed travel

i call bullshit and we just haven't found a way to do it yet.

>> No.5293977

>>5293959
you know absolutely nothing.

>> No.5293980

>>5293973
How do you feel about time travel and overunity?

>> No.5293981

Or compressing random data?

>> No.5293984

>>5293973
Light is massless, which is why it travels that fast.

There are some perspectives where things can be observed as traveling faster than light, but from an individual perspective, its not possible. Why? Because it would destroy everything we know about matter.

One of the propositions for getting around that is compressing the space in front of the traveler, but other than that, we're looking at a pipedream for FTL.

You can't just 'get around' something light that.

>> No.5293986

>>5293977
you are correct sir i really don't know anything.

>>5293980
I don't know what overunity is. As far as time travel goes i don't think it's possible to go forward in time because it hasn't happened yet. Possibly back, but nothing that would effect our current time. It would just create a new time line right? I dunno

this is what i mean though... while i'm not educated on any of this stuff it just seems silly to say it's impossible and just give up trying. Why not try to invent something that solves the problem. We probably just dont have the technology to do it yet.

>>5293981
i dont know about that either


But this is kind of what i mean

>> No.5293987

>>5293984
>light
>Massless
Pick one. Even light has mass you plebe.

>> No.5293990

>>5293973
Holy shit, you are dumb as fuck. This isn't people saying, "I don't feel like doing this," or "people should not try to do this," it's "there is no way we know of, and all evidence shows that there is absolutely no way this is possible."
>>5293986
Try googling it. This isn't people placing arbitrary limits, it's that there are things that cannot be done. Seriously, google "why can't we go faster than the speed of light" or something.

When you post stupid shit like this without thinking, you make yourself look bad. Look it up and think before you post for Christ's sake. This is a basic rule EVERYWHERE.

THINK.

>> No.5293991

>>5293987
Incorrect. Photons have no mass. They do not interact with the Higgs field. Thus, they travel at the maximum speed for the universe- as to say, the speed limit.

>> No.5293992

>>5293987
Seriously, nigger?

>> No.5293993

>>5293984
>Because it would destroy everything we know about matter.

this is another example... so what? Then let it destroy everything we know about matter. There is a massive amount of stuff we don't know yet. We just have to wait until someone or something finds the missing piece. By not trying at all is just delaying that discovery

>> No.5293995

>>5293986
You can go forward in time by going really fast.

It's impossible to go backwards in time. Some edgy physicists like to think that you can go sideways, but that's just bullshit conjecture like that theory that we're 3D projections of a hologram or some retarded fucking thing like that.

It also takes millions of man hours to come up with this shit you goddamn idiot. You must be one of those idiots that think technology just increases because lol smartphones.

>> No.5293998

>>5293993
Nah, we got it down to pretty much 4 forces that model causality.

Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak Nuclear Force, and Strong Nuclear Force.

>> No.5294000

>>5293992
>>5293991
Really? You guys really think it doesn't have Mass? 0 mass is still a mass.

>> No.5294001

>>5293995
Now come on, don't bang on the guy. Don't make an appeal from authority, either; give him some logic, some good reasoning.
No sense whipping the student if you don't tell him how to do it right afterwards.

>> No.5294003

>>5294000
>0 Mass is still a mass

What the fuck am I reading?

>> No.5294004

>>5293993
Stop posting. You cannot go faster than the speed of light because it would require an INFINITE AMOUNT OF ENERGY.

As your speed increases toward the speed of light, your mass increases and the more energy you would require to continue accelerating. You would need more energy than there could even potentially be in the universe.

>> No.5294005

>>5294000
SERIOUSLY, nigger?

>> No.5294007

>>5294003
A philosophical view on the concept of nothing, meaningless, and Zero.

Or an idiot. Having 0 of something proves it has a quantity of it. However, what it may be?

>> No.5294010

>>5294004
why is it impossible to attach something to light and sort of ride it?

>> No.5294011

>>5293993
No. That's completely wrong. What >>5293984 and >>5294004
said is irrelevant for your discussion. We cannot go faster than light not because we'd need infinite energy, or because it'd break physics (although both are true). We cannot go faster than light because it /cannot be done/. That's it. Game over. You would have to have negative mass, which is like going a negative speed. You can't do it. Even if you were going backwards, you'd still be going and thus have a speed. It simply cannot be done. And >>5293995 is correct: you can go forwards in time. Going backwards in time would imply faster-than-light travel, aka impossible. Sorry.

>>5294000
You're an idiot. 0 anything is still anything, of course. For instance, I am in possession of 0 Ferraris [sic]. "Oh, that means you don't have any Ferraris." No, I've got Ferraris. 0 Ferraris.

>> No.5294012

>>5294005
0.0000......0001 = 0

So theoretically 0 mass is the same as infinitely close to 0. Proove me wrong.

>> No.5294013

>>5293959
>Isn't putting limits on science holding us back?
Science is done to describe natural phenomena, not limit it.

>> No.5294017

>>5294012
SERIOUSLY, NIGGER?
Alright, I'm sorry.

0.00...001 terminates, therefore it does NOT equal 0. It's damn close, but it terminates.

>> No.5294022

>>5294017
/sci/ is so easy. I love you guys.

>> No.5294019

>>5294013
Using linguistics to define/describe things is what holds us back. We need to be able to fully conceptualize and understand everything without the hindrances of languages.

So the root of the problem is language. Fuck English majors.

>> No.5294021

>>5294010
That would get you the speed of light, not faster than the speed of light. And no, you can't turn on the headlights on a car going the speed of light; space would /literally/ warp to make it all go at the same speed.

>>5294012
That's infinitesimals. And we cannot prove you wrong, because you're correct. 0 anything is the same as infinitely close to 0. Back to my Ferrari metaphor: I have infinitely close to zero Ferraris. That's zero. Same thing. No point.

>> No.5294024

light speed travel is just one example

what about finding a way to warp from point A to point B? I know we have done this at a very small scale which leads me to believe someday it will be possible at a larger scale. Like from one planet to another or two points in open space.

>> No.5294028

>>5294024
>I know we have done this at a very small scale

We have?

>> No.5294029

>>5294021
so it may be possible to travel at light speed but not faster?

>> No.5294031

>>5294012
Infinitesimal series do not exist in nature, there is a unit where no smaller numbers make sense.

>> No.5294032

>>5294024

Yeah, if you can convince the zarblaxians to let us borrow their warpgates. You'd have better luck trying to go superluminal.

>> No.5294034

>>5294019
Aaand this. As Max Tegmark said, we need to get away from many-words interpretations of the universe. It ended in a cheesy pun about many-worlds, but the foundation is secure: Use MATH, not idiot illogical WORDS, and the universe makes infinitely more sense. And yes, I just used an infinity in an informal contest. *shocker*

>>5294024
>I know we have done this at a very small scale
Exactly. There's no rule against it. Silly silly ...

>>5294029
[facepalm] What do you think light does, honey? It would be impossible for humans to do it, of course, without being reduced to bosons. But, sure, theoretically. Go 4 it.

>> No.5294037

>>5294028
yeah didn't some scientist teleport some shit a small distance using entanglement or something?

>> No.5294039

>>5294017
>>5294021
Theorhetically it's possible to travel infinitely closer to the speed of light with a "infinitely" close to unlimited energy type situation.

Amirite Sound barrier wasn't hard.

>> No.5294040

>>5294034
>It would be impossible for humans to do it, of course, without being reduced to bosons

so find a way to restructure things on the other end?

>> No.5294042

>>5294041
its probably a step in the right direction though

>> No.5294041

>>5294037
Teleportation is far different from warp hole travel.

>> No.5294043

>>5294029
No; photons only do it because they have 0 mass. We have mass, so that ain't gonna work.

You should probably go ahead and do a little reading on QM. There's a lot of bullshit that's seeped into pop culture, but it's actually not all that hard to understand, besides the maths.

>>5294040
The Standard Model is something you need to read up on, too.
Don't worry, you'll probably only need a quick wiki binge to get yourself going. Like I said, once you do some tweaking, this stuff is actually pretty easy to understand.

>> No.5294045

>>5294037
I don't think that's how entanglement works, bro. You might want to look up words like that yourself.

>> No.5294297

>>5294011

Simmer down, neckbeard. You're being way too aggressive in this thread.

>> No.5294319

http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive

what do you guys think of this?

>> No.5294361

>>5293959
Putting a limit on science, as you put it, only makes another boundary for us to cross. Without a goal to reach, where will we go?
Lets take the year 1900 for example-

>Space travel is impossible

Year 1959

>Luna reaches outer space

The next stop was setting foot on the moon... Guess what we did? And then Mars? If anything, it's nudging us forward to try to explore beyond those boundaries.

>> No.5294370
File: 44 KB, 500x282, i dont want to live on this planet anymore.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5294370

We could be 50 years ahead in medical and genetic sciences if testing on live humans were allowed.
Take fuckers on death row and test on them, but no, its not humane...
Some fag could rape 50 children, murder 500 people, and cause 50 billion in damages, be sentenced to death, and still you would have bleeding hearts disagree with any sort of "barbaric" testing on such an individual.

>> No.5294378

>>5294370
http://www.innocenceproject.org/

>> No.5294388
File: 13 KB, 300x200, omelette.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5294388

>>5294378
>http://www.innocenceproject.org/

>> No.5294392
File: 492 KB, 680x675, 1351145527374.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5294392

>>5294378

>Average of 5 exonerations of death row inmates a year
>Thinks that is significant enough of a number to nullify the point made.

That's funny.

>> No.5294395
File: 133 KB, 700x714, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5294395

>>5294378

>> No.5294396

>>5294388

Also saging with an image.

I am disappointed, Anon.

>> No.5294398

>>5294392
>has never heard of lower bound
>is on /sci/

>> No.5294399

>>5294370
Two wrongs don't make a right, sorry. The reason people are sentenced to death isn't for revenge, it's because they are clearly incapable of changing and will continue to be a danger to others so long as they are alive.

>> No.5294402

>>5293986
Unless I'm mistaken, you are traveling forward in time right now. Check your timestamps ;)

>> No.5294407

>>5293959
I think you need to differentiate between the scenarios "we can't do A because of rigorously and mathematically defined B" and "we can't do A because because".

>> No.5294411

>>5294398

>implying that lower bound changes anything

>> No.5294446

>>5294399
Not whoever you're arguing with, but I think you're skipping over something here. Sure, two wrongs don't make a right, but all our choices there are wrongs, so the only logical solution consistent with morality is choosing the lesser evil.

And quite frankly, I disagree with your arbitrary value judgment that the "wrong" of human testing on death row inmates being inhumane is a lesser wrong than the waste of the medical data that could've been obtained from his body instead of injecting it with potassium chloride and tossing it in a dumpster or whatever it is they do.

Plus, lethal injection (as it's done now) is pretty conclusively considered by the medical community to be inhumane anyway, certainly more so than many types of medical testing would be. Even Dr. Kevorkian gave people gentle opiate deaths, not agonizing and spasmodic KCl deaths.

All that being said, people in here are definitely overstating the value of inmate testing. Sure, we could some additional data from that (and any at all is enough to morally justify it, imho), but there's just a loooooot we couldn't ever do with a study population that's fairly consistently:
1) Not racially representative of the general population
2) More likely to have engaged in risky lifestyle behaviors, such as casual sex and getting sketchy tattoos, meaning they're wayyy more likely to be disease-ridden
3) More likely to have injuries and/or organ damage, from gunshots, illicit drugs, etc.
4) Presumably having killed or raped multiple human beings and/or knowing that your own death is impending puts them in a pretty unique psychological state

Probably I could think of more if I stopped to really think about it, but the bottom line is that these people wouldn't be representative enough of the population and have too many confounding factors to make them useful at all for like easily 95% of medical studies anyway, so it's kind of a moot point to debate.

>> No.5294449

>>5294396
doesnt understand the meaning of the image

>> No.5294451

>>5294399

their lives can still be useful.

>> No.5294465

>>5294446

Think of what you could do with a live brain though. Even if they are disease ridden and mad, opening the skull and performing tests on a live subject without any opposition could yield tremendous results.

>> No.5294487

>>5294465

No it couldn't. This is reality, not a sci-fi novel from the 1950's. Name one aspect of neurology or neuroscience that could be studied this way and that isn't already being investigated effectively either academically with fMRI or clinically by neurosurgeons during experimental procedures.

It's not specific to your brain example anyway, you could never get data that meant anything useful with a patient population like that. I mean jeez, medical studies are really difficult as it is, even with the larger and more controlled patient population. If you're struggling with the variable isolation, experimental design, and statistic issues here, maybe you should give up on a career in a science, bud. This is just fundamentally basic experimentation stuff.

>> No.5294506

>>5294446
I'm not saying testing inmates is wrong, I'm saying that the idea that people are sentenced to death for revenge is wrong. You're arguing against a point I haven't even made.

Ask for inmate consent, if they consent then test as much as you want, though even as you mentioned, it won't be too useful, and if they say no then you kill them as usual and then depending on the will of the family you either give them the body, use it for testing, or destroy it. If there is no family, then the body is state property anyways and likely goes for testing or medical use anyway.

>> No.5294512

To this day I still don't understand how going faster and approaching the speed of light moves you forward in time quicker.

>> No.5294519

Hahahahahahahahahahaha, fuck you.
You're so fucking wrong. Look at the fact that people just last year thought that they observed something faster than the speed of light (they were wrong though). Scientists were ready to replicate it. If new evidence comes up, it'll be tested. There are no limits -.-.

>> No.5294525

>>5294519
>-.-
>can't even read the thread
>arguing a person who likely isn't even around anymore
>about a topic nobody in the thread is even discussing anymore
What's been going on with /sci/ recently? Did someone link us on reddit or a site full of kids?

>> No.5294522

>>5294512

Same here.

>> No.5294530

Ill let you in on a llittle secret OP
Science does have a religion
Its called 'limits'
We have all these inclinitions on the basisi of what confines energy to what it is parading as but we have oh so little understanding of what got them to be that way, only recently have we properly outlined one of these 'makers' & that ws through the equivilent of, although scientist don't like to say it, time displacement.
We may think we know a lot OP but were only just getting to where it counts

Tl;dr look harder & you will always find what you can

>> No.5294544

>>5294512
The faster you approach the speed of light the slower time moves.


picture this

A vehicle is launched from earth at the speed of light (yes, acceleration, etc. but this is just to help anon understand). This vehicle's destination is 10 light years away.
To the TRAVELER the trip will seem instant.
to the OBSERVER on earth, the trip will take 10 years.
Time dilation and all that.

>> No.5294564

>>5294544
How can the trip seem instant for the traveller if it will take 10 Light years?

The guy still has to travel that distance over the course of 10 years, how does that change at all.

>> No.5294577

>>5294544
not him, but i must say I'm confused how a localized warp field would negate the time difference between traveler and observer.

>> No.5294581

>>5294564
For an outside observer, the trip will take ten years, but due to relativistic time dilation, a lightspeed journey will take no time for the traveler.

>> No.5294585

>>5294544
that's not how it works

to the traveler, it takes 10 years to get there
to an observer on earth, it'll take a couple thousand years

>> No.5294589

>>5294581
How can the journey seem instant. The vehicle he is in still has to travel the 10 years...

>> No.5294590

>>5294585
>to an observer on earth, it'll take a couple thousand years

Even if they're moving at light speed?

>> No.5294594

>>5294544
FUCK time dilation.
How does that even work?
Okay, the guy traveling is launched 10 light years. Does he age?
Is he +0 age, while the observer is +10?
That doesn't even make sense. Are you saying the faster you move (relatively ) the slower your individual cells age?

>> No.5294596

>>5294590

well, if the ship that's moving at lightspeed is emitting light of some sort, otherwise you'd never know where i was

>> No.5294598 [DELETED] 

>>5294564

Yes, 10 years will pass regardless. BUT for the traveler, no time would have passed because his travel time is zero.

So while everyone on earth will have aged 10 years, the traveler will not have aged. This is the problem with space travel. Even if we find a way to negate the mass of an object to achieve near light speed, there is no way to return to your destination to report your findings within an appropriate time period.

>> No.5294603

>>5294594
the slower the atoms within the cells age

>> No.5294608

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5294598[/spoiler]
I still don't see how the travel time could be zero.


If he is travelling the distance he still needs to go at it for 10 years as well...

>> No.5294624

>>5294608
Don't feel bad. relativistic physics isn't very intuitive. yes, time slows down or the traveler, and assuming he could travel at the speed of light, it would freeze.

>> No.5294636

>>5294624
it doesn't though

no matter what speed you're traveling at, you always experience time normally

>> No.5294643

>>5294603
no

you age normally, from your perspective, everything else is frozen in time. but when you slow down, suddenly everything seems a lot older than you

>> No.5294654

Anon who is trying to understand this time shit.

I'm a twin. Lets say I travel one light year at the speed of light, in an orbit around earth (I don't know if this is a valid hypothetical but just work with me) and my twin stays on earth.

I will have been orbitting for a full year. Everyone else would have been waiting for me, for a full year. When I come back down to earth, will I be the same age as the twin?

>> No.5294658

>>thread about limits on science
>>control + f Feyerabend
>> 0 results

Keep up the good work /sci/

>> No.5294662

>>5294654

you will be one year older than when you left
everyone else will be dead from old age

>> No.5294665

>>5294662
How?

>> No.5294669

>>5293959
>If I don't say I'm talking about FTL travel, no one will suspect a thing.

>> No.5294672

>>5293984
>There are some perspectives where things can be observed as traveling faster than light, but from an individual perspective, its not possible. Why? Because it would destroy everything we know about matter.

please, please, please stop posting.

>> No.5294678

>>5294665
when you travel at lightspeed, you experience time normally. if you look out the window, the earth will be frozen in the instant it was at when you left and will stay that will till you slow down.

when you get back to earth, it will have moved thousands of years into it's future. your twin will be dead. that's how the math works

>> No.5294679

>>5293987
Rest mass isn't the same thing as inertial mass, you're being specious.
>>5293991
You're just ignorant though.

>> No.5294690

>>5294678
So is light that takes 8 minutes (or whatever it is, I don't bother looking it up right now) to get to Earth from the Sun really thousands of years from the past? This is what I can't get my head around, why light can travel with no penalty, but the moment I travel at the speed of light I'm moving faster into the future.

>> No.5294711

>>5294690
not thousands of years, more like a few months

>> No.5294721

>>5294711
Okay fine, so why is the light that comes from my computer screen right now not showing my eyes what I was doing a few weeks ago? (or whatever the equivalent time-distance ratio is)

>> No.5294722

>>5294690
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa81lP9MR0I

>> No.5294724

>There are some perspectives where things can be observed as traveling faster than light, but from an individual perspective, its not possible. Why? Because it would destroy everything we know about matter.

Isn't it infact the exact opposite?

>> No.5294725

>>5294721
because the light only moves about a foot or two. In that time, we only age a fraction of a second faster than it

>> No.5294729

>>5294721
light can go around the earth 3 or 4 times in 1 second. so the time it takes to get from your computer to your eyes is negligble

>> No.5294734

>>5294711

Light from the sun set out on its journey months before we actually see and feel it?

>> No.5294743

>>5294734
no, it takes 8 minutes

>> No.5294757

>>5294722
Thanks for this. It kind of helps.

I just need to try and rationalize it a little more to comprehend it.

>> No.5294760

>>5294662
He said lightspeed, so he shouldn't age at all. It's not possible, though.

>> No.5294761

>>5294757
you should consider looking up the wiki about it

the math for special relativity is based on a concept that is a few hundred years old and only requires elementary algebra to understand

>> No.5294769

>>5294761
Will do.

I don't know why I can't fully grasp it. I mean, I can tell you what it is, and know the concept, but I couldn't explain why

>> No.5294770

>>5294760
no, that's not how it works

the whole point of special relativity is the relativity part. if you're moving at lightspeed, it's the same mathematically as saying you're not moving at all and everything around you is moving at lightspeed. no matter what frame of reference you're in, no matter what speed you're going, relative to your frame of reference you age at a rate of 1s/s. anyone watching you go lightspeed will say you're not experiencing time. likewise, you watching everyone watching you will appear to not be experience time. either way, you still age

>> No.5294777

>>5294770
You can't transform to the rest frame of an object moving at the speed of light. It doesn't have one.

>> No.5294789

>>5294777
it does, it's just non-real

>> No.5294801

Thanks for at least trying to help me understand time dilation. I kind of get it, but not fully by any means.


Off to bed for me though.

>> No.5294920

>>5293959
just curious, if you could neutralise the higgs boson field or remove the higgs boson all together could you reach the speed of light on matter that would usually have mass?

>> No.5294927

>>5294920
Even without the Higgs field, things would still have mass.

>> No.5294929

You have no idea what you're talking about OP.
You're suggesting paradigm shifts for models that have been tested time and time again and proven right, this is not the middle ages anymore, that shit won't fly.

>> No.5294930

>>5294927
This. They just wouldn't have gravity. Possibly they'd lack inertia too.

>> No.5294931

>>5294927
>implying a chiral condensate wouldn't imply galaxy-sized nuclear interactions
>implying life

>> No.5294939

>>5294930
The Higgs field has nothing to do with gravity.